POL: Rebate info

[14ers]

I do not understand why a lame duck President like Bush, would be pushing a rebate. And, it looks like both Democrats and Republicans are going to be declaring victory if this Rebate idea goes through.


Personally I have never understood the rebate idea. My state did this a couple times when there was a surpluss of funds at the end of the year; but last time I checked the US Government is not running in the black.

How is devaluing the dollar even further a good idea?

[flounder]

Giving money away = More votes = Win!

The fundamental theorem of government.

[JPhillips]

I don't know whether or not it's good policy as there's apparently some evidence that people won't spend it. The size of the rebate that's being discussed along with the probability of a 75 basis point drop in the Fed rate says to me that there's real fear that we could be headed toward a big recession. Remember we still haven't reached the peak of ARM resets, so consumer spending is likely to slide for several months.

In terms of overall spending, what the hell. We've given up all semblance of fiscal sanity, so at least this money is going to Americans as opposed to the Middle East or third world factory workers. I wish more people cared about a balanced budget, but they don't.

[Flasch186]

I'm in the camp that this wont stave off a recession (if were not regionally already in one).

[Arles]

Didn't work in 1975, didn't work in 2001 and I gather it won't work in 2008. If people were really concerned about avoiding a recession, they would either do a marginal tax cut or atleast reduce the capital gains rate. The only way to stave off or atleast reduce a recession is to increase investment in the private sector, not give everyone an extra $200 to pay down their credit cards.

[Flasch186]

yeah, i take a look at what I'd do with it and I dont see us rushing out to spend whatever we get albeit Im in real estate so perhaps Im feeling it a little more pronouncedly than some others.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Didn't work in 1975, didn't work in 2001 and I gather it won't work in 2008. If people were really concerned about avoiding a recession, they would either do a marginal tax cut or atleast reduce the capital gains rate. The only way to stave off or atleast reduce a recession is to increase investment in the private sector, not give everyone an extra $200 to pay down their credit cards.

The ONLY way? Pretty blanket statement there.

Care to explain why it is the ONLY way?

[JPhillips]

Arles: I won't argue tax policy with you, but the mechanics of a tax cut make it extremely unlikely that it would make any difference over the next twelve months. If the goal is to minimize a recession in 2008 a tax cut won't work.

[Arles]

There are numerous ways - but many need to be handled in the private sector. Outside of reducing regulation, tax burden and encouraging investment, there isn't a ton the gov't can do to stop a recession.

JPhillips,

If we are headed for a recession in 2008, not much can be done at this point. My statement was that if the government was really worried about doing the best it can, the ideas I listed would be there best shot. Still, much of this is cyclical and there's not a ton the US government can do outside of letting the private sector work through it. However, it can provide the means for a quicker recovery (ie, encouraging investment).

Still, there's no "New Deal" solution that will involve government spending its way out of a pending recession. And, my fear is that's the direction both political parties will take as to pander for more votes in this election season.

[JPhillips]

I'd probably prefer a 150 billion public infrastructure campaign focusing on bridges, water/sewer pipes, and public schools in disrepair. It would put people to work and fix a lot of things that are going to need repairing sooner or later anyway.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Arles: I won't argue tax policy with you, but the mechanics of a tax cut make it extremely unlikely that it would make any difference over the next twelve months. If the goal is to minimize a recession in 2008 a tax cut won't work.

I agree with JPhillips.

I don't think a measely $800 taken from one taxpayer and given to another is going to do anything to stave off recession. Nor do I think making the Bush tax cuts permanent will do a damn thing either.

[Buccaneer]

I'd probably prefer a 150 billion public infrastructure campaign focusing on bridges, water/sewer pipes, and public schools in disrepair. It would put people to work and fix a lot of things that are going to need repairing sooner or later anyway.

You don't have a local utilities that would take of water/sewer pipes and therefore must rely on the federal govt to do so?!?!?

[Glengoyne]

The ONLY way? Pretty blanket statement there.

Care to explain why it is the ONLY way?


Don't you two talk?

[JPhillips]

You don't have a local utilities that would take of water/sewer pipes and therefore must rely on the federal govt to do so?!?!?

In a perfect world, yes, but in this world a lot of cities have so neglicted their water and sewer pipes that it will take a massive influx of cash to fix the problem. Under normal circumstances that cost would get placed on the utility users and in general I think that's fine. In this case, though, if the money is going to get spent regardless I'd just like to see it put to use in a way that puts people to work and also improves our crumbling national infrastructure. I think this is a far better use for the money than checks that will go to the credit card companies.

[Cringer]

The real story in this thread is Farrah siding against Arles. Not a big deal, but fun to read so far. :D

It seems the rest of the world feels a tax rebate will do absolutely nothing as well.

[JPhillips]

dola

My last post got me thinking, maybe part of the point of the rebates is to shore up the banking sector without having a politically suicidal bailout. It seems pretty clear that rebates will not be as useful as claimed, especially if they leave out those who don't pay income taxes.

Is the rebate designed to put tens of billions into the banking sector ASAP?

[Honolulu Blue]

Is the rebate designed to put tens of billions into the banking sector ASAP?

The rebate, as I best understand its point, is to put a substantial amount of money in the hands of consumers, some of whom will spend it relatively quickly, and thus stimulate growth across the board - enough to avert a recession.

A public works program isn't a bad long-term plan, but the money isn't going to get spent fast enough to do what Bush & Co. want.

My hope is that it's not a pseudo-refund like the one in '03 (i.e., giving money back but not actually changing the tax brackets).

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Don't you two talk?

No.

:D

[JPhillips]

The rebate, as I best understand its point, is to put a substantial amount of money in the hands of consumers, some of whom will spend it relatively quickly, and thus stimulate growth across the board - enough to avert a recession.

A public works program isn't a bad long-term plan, but the money isn't going to get spent fast enough to do what Bush & Co. want.

My hope is that it's not a pseudo-refund like the one in '03 (i.e., giving money back but not actually changing the tax brackets).

But plenty of research has shown that rebates like these, targeted only at those making enough to pay income taxes, tend not to significantly boost spending. People tend to spend based on their salary level, not on how much cash they have at the moment. This type of rebate goes predominantly towards paying debt or savings, both of which get cash into the banking sector.

I'm just wondering if this rebate will accually do exactly what is hoped for, shore up the cash starved banking sector.

[PilotMan]

I can't see how this is what is going to save us. On the other hand, I am getting the idea that everyone is overreacting a little bit to this whole recession thing. I mean, the writing has been on the wall for sometime. Just like Social Security for the last few years. You know that the bad stuff is coming. A couple hundred back isn't going to fix it all. Unless, they are painting it to be worse than it is, and then will claim success if and when a recession fails to completely materialize.

What we should be saying is how can we honestly continue to spend for things that we don't really "need" when the money shouldn't be spent at all, because we just can't afford it.

The government is the only place in the world where you overspend on purpose so you can justify spending more money next time. Why is it run so differently than businesses? Why can't we put someone in office who is going to manage the books and serve the people instead of trying to please everyone all of the time and putting off the shit until a later date, which is what seems like is going on?

[flere-imsaho]

A public works initiative is a plan I'd like to support, but given the way Congress works these days (and by "these days" I mean since the early 20th century), you know it's just going to end up being a huge pork barrel bill.

[miami_fan]

The government is the only place in the world where you overspend on purpose so you can justify spending more money next time. Why is it run so differently than businesses? Why can't we put someone in office who is going to manage the books and serve the people instead of trying to please everyone all of the time and putting off the shit until a later date, which is what seems like is going on?

Quaint idea.

[dl5175]

My daughter needs a new set of golf clubs, I need a new monitor, I'll spend mine quickly!

[Greyroofoo]

I need a hooker so I can get the clap at the end of a movie, so I'll spend mine quickly as well!

[Raiders Army]

If my wife ever argued with me in a thread, I'd smack the stupid outta her. ;)

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

If my wife ever argued with me in a thread, I'd smack the stupid outta her. ;)

I like to be smacked around. ;)

[stevew]

It'd be nice to get somewhere around 1600 for me and the wife. Should be more than enough to furnish my front room, and still have some money to put towards another flat screen TV.

These rebates are going to count against 2008 taxes, probably? So I may want to adjust my witholding a bit, so I don't end up owing next year. I usually have it figured out where I have a minimal return <1000.

[sterlingice]

The government is the only place in the world where you overspend on purpose so you can justify spending more money next time. Why is it run so differently than businesses? Why can't we put someone in office who is going to manage the books and serve the people instead of trying to please everyone all of the time and putting off the shit until a later date, which is what seems like is going on?

Perot in '08? :D

SI

[JPhillips]

Today should be a hell of a ride. The Asian and Euro markets have lost around ten percent since the NYSE was last open. The Fed is so spooked that they announced a 75 basis point cut now instead of waiting until the regular meeting next week.

My guess is the rate cut has little effect on the market today and stocks drop 300 to 400 points.

[Honolulu Blue]

These rebates are going to count against 2008 taxes, probably? So I may want to adjust my witholding a bit, so I don't end up owing next year. I usually have it figured out where I have a minimal return <1000.

As I mentioned earlier, I hope not.

I've heard three ways this could work, which may or may not resemble what actually happens:

* Give $800 to each single person and $1600 to each married couple. This would only be for those who paid that much or more in taxes last year. It would be accomplished by zeroing out the 10% tax bracket for a year.

* Same as above, only for all tax filers, whether they pay taxes or not.

* A similar amount, but based on payroll taxes.

[flere-imsaho]

The government is the only place in the world where you overspend on purpose so you can justify spending more money next time. Why is it run so differently than businesses?

Not to detract from your point (which is a good one), but I've seen this practice in play at many large businesses. In fact, I just got done managing a project for a large Pharma where I was told to find as many ways as possible to spend money on the project before the end of the fiscal year, as it'll help them justify future budgets.

[Galaxy]

Why I would love to see Bloomberg run:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/23/602598.aspx

I agree with him. Not just now, but long-term.

[SackAttack]

Didn't work in 1975, didn't work in 2001 and I gather it won't work in 2008. If people were really concerned about avoiding a recession, they would either do a marginal tax cut or atleast reduce the capital gains rate. The only way to stave off or atleast reduce a recession is to increase investment in the private sector, not give everyone an extra $200 to pay down their credit cards.

I'd argue that helping people to reduce their current debt load can't hurt future consumer spending, as less debt = increased incentive to spend...but I don't think $200 is going to be sufficient to get the job done.

I think the credit issue probably dwarfs the ability of the government to do anything about it, short of somehow managing to unilaterally declare that existing debt is nonrecoverable...and that isn't going to happen.

So, at best, it's going to be a feel-good move.

[Flasch186]

negotiations do show some good highlights of possibilities. Fannie and Freddie could be buying loans of a much larger amount (good), getting money into the hands of the poorest workers (good - since theyre likely to spend it), Congress is actually working late with the president tonight (good - since our politicians are actually working).

[Flasch186]

negotiations do show some good highlights of possibilities. Fannie and Freddie could be buying loans of a much larger amount (good), getting money into the hands of the poorest workers (good - since theyre likely to spend it), Congress is actually working late with the president tonight (good - since our politicians are actually working).

[mrsimperless]

Do these people never think ANYTHING through?

Even if Bush were to give us all $10,000 who is to say that money will even be spent or will be spent on goods or services from domestic companies?

[CamEdwards]

I like to be smacked around. ;)

How is it that so many people ignored this?

Y'all need your testosterone shots or something? Jeez.

[Crapshoot]

Its a band-aid problem for a gushing wound located elsewhere, and all it does is heighten the American consumer's sense that government debt is not fundamentally their problem.

Of course, I may be bitter since I'm a taxpayer (CA - no less!) who is an immigrant, and thus no rebate. :D

[Masked]

negotiations do show some good highlights of possibilities. Fannie and Freddie could be buying loans of a much larger amount (good)

Hopefully any new limits will be high enough to cover a mortgage for a median priced home (assuming a 20% downpayment) for the highest cost areas (i.e. Bay Area), but the numbers I have seen are coming up short.

[Ksyrup]

I find this instructive:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/23/opinion/23opchart.600.jpg


What is everybody going to do with their money? I'm planning to put some/most of it toward credit card debt. I suspect others will do the same, and of course there are those trying to save their houses as well. What if the Dems and Repubs could pull off a bit of an election year PR move AND help their bank friends all at the same time? Why take a PR hit by doing directly what you can get positive PR for by doing indirectly?

[st.cronin]

I'm going to spend half my money on hookers and whisky. The rest I'll probably just waste.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not to detract from your point (which is a good one), but I've seen this practice in play at many large businesses.

I see you beat me to it. This is something that's very common in my experience, pretty much any place where next year's budget is based on some factor of this year's budget.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I saw this sentence in one of the latest AP articles & thought it might be one of the bigger understatements I've seen in quite a while.
Conservative Republicans, meanwhile, were likely to be restless over tax rebates going to those without income tax liability.

"Restless" doesn't begin to describe it. I'm thinking more along the lines of whatever word describes the act of marching with bad intentions while carrying pitchforks & torches.

edit to clarify: Just so there's no confusion, I'm talking about my personal reaction to it, not what I expect even the "conservative Republican" reaction to be.

[stevew]

Yeah, they have EITC, no reason to give out anything to those with no tax liability of their own. There's already enough programs that give shit away.

[Greyroofoo]

i'll probably invest my rebate or put it in a money-market

[JPhillips]

I saw this sentence in one of the latest AP articles & thought it might be one of the bigger understatements I've seen in quite a while.


"Restless" doesn't begin to describe it. I'm thinking more along the lines of whatever word describes the act of marching with bad intentions while carrying pitchforks & torches.

edit to clarify: Just so there's no confusion, I'm talking about my personal reaction to it, not what I expect even the "conservative Republican" reaction to be.

I'm not a real big fan of the rebate, but there is some good economic theory behind this. The people with the most liquidity problems, which generally includes the poor, are those most likely to spend the money as opposed to saving it or paying debt. If the goal is to get consumers to spend this makes sense.

Of course I could also argue that anyone with a job pays payroll taxes and the payroll tax surplus goes into the general fund, so some percentage of their payroll taxes is a de facto income tax.

[Arles]

BTW, it looks like if you make more than 75K as an individual or 150K as a family, you won't get the rebate. Of course, those people pay approximately 60% of the income tax bill, so why give them a rebate? ;)

This is just pure pandering. If it was across the board, it would make some sense but they are basically excluding an enormous chunk of small businesses by having that threshold.

[Galaxy]

BTW, it looks like if you make more than 75K as an individual or 150K as a family, you won't get the rebate. Of course, those people pay approximately 60% of the income tax bill, so why give them a rebate? ;)

This is just pure pandering. If it was across the board, it would make some sense but they are basically excluding an enormous chunk of small businesses by having that threshold.

This is my problem. Basically, your rewarding bad behavior by taking money away from those who make good decisions. For all the crap Bush gets about his tax cuts (which would of been fine if he cut spending to pay for it), the Democrats are just as pathetic. It amazes me the lack of foresight and knowledge that these guys have.

Your not going to fix the mortage problems. You just need to let it play out, I think. I really don't think you can offer a solution for it.

[JediKooter]

I'm going to buy a bunch of tree saplings and plant them, so my decendants can have jobs in the lumber industry.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, they have EITC, no reason to give out anything to those with no tax liability of their own. There's already enough programs that give shit away.

Um... you realize this refund isn't just supposed to be a gift, right? Its supposed to be a economic stimulus. It is well known that people with lower incomes have a higher marginal propensity to consume than those with higher incomes. So they are much, much more likely to spend the refund than those who have, say, over $75,000, who are more likely to save.

If you are doing a rebate program to increase consumer spending, to stave off a recession (personally I think its a horrible idea), it makes perfect sense to give more money to those on the lower end of the economic scale. They'll actually spend more of it.

[Mustang]

This is my problem. Basically, your rewarding bad behavior by taking money away from those who make good decisions.

Maybe you just used the quote and your point had nothing to do with the quote, but are you saying that individuals that make less than $75K or Families making less than $150K make bad decisions? :confused:

[stevew]

Um... you realize this refund isn't just supposed to be a gift, right? Its supposed to be a economic stimulus. It is well known that people with lower incomes have a higher marginal propensity to consume than those with higher incomes. So they are much, much more likely to spend the refund than those who have, say, over $75,000, who are more likely to save.

If you are doing a rebate program to increase consumer spending, to stave off a recession (personally I think its a horrible idea), it makes perfect sense to give more money to those on the lower end of the economic scale. They'll actually spend more of it.

I'm just opposed to the concept of rebating anything to those that didn't pay in the first place. That being said, I should make bank off of this rebate, as I'm sure I'll sell dozens and dozens of HDTV's when the checks get cut.

[14ers]

I read that they will be mailing rebates starting in May and going on through August. I wonder what kind of order they will be issuing the rebates in? Alphabetic, Numeric, or by the order date that your Income Tax is filed?

Generally I wait until the last minute before sending my Check to the IRS; I wonder if this will cause my Rebate to be one of the August ones?

[JPhillips]

I'm just opposed to the concept of rebating anything to those that didn't pay in the first place. That being said, I should make bank off of this rebate, as I'm sure I'll sell dozens and dozens of HDTV's when the checks get cut.

But as I said, they do pay, even if you don't want to count the payroll taxes "paying taxes". Because the payroll taxes run a surplus the extra money goes into the general fund. Some portion of their payroll taxes are a de facto income tax.

[ISiddiqui]

But as I said, they do pay, even if you don't want to count the payroll taxes "paying taxes". Because the payroll taxes run a surplus the extra money goes into the general fund. Some portion of their payroll taxes are a de facto income tax.

Absolutely true. Most people, though, don't see the payroll tax because its all taken out before it hits their check/bank account.

[flere-imsaho]

I read that they will be mailing rebates starting in May and going on through August. I wonder what kind of order they will be issuing the rebates in? Alphabetic, Numeric, or by the order date that your Income Tax is filed?

My guess is: completely random. :)

But as I said, they do pay, even if you don't want to count the payroll taxes "paying taxes". Because the payroll taxes run a surplus the extra money goes into the general fund. Some portion of their payroll taxes are a de facto income tax.

Yep, thus the difference between gross income and net income.

[flere-imsaho]

Absolutely true. Most people, though, don't see the payroll tax because its all taken out before it hits their check/bank account.

On a related note - this is also the best way to save: have it taken out of your paycheck before you even see it. If possible, you can accomplish this through splitting your direct deposit. The majority of your net goes to your "regular" bank account, while a certain percentage goes directly to a "savings" account.

[Mustang]

I read that they will be mailing rebates starting in May and going on through August. I wonder what kind of order they will be issuing the rebates in? Alphabetic, Numeric, or by the order date that your Income Tax is filed?

Generally I wait until the last minute before sending my Check to the IRS; I wonder if this will cause my Rebate to be one of the August ones?

Last time I thought it was the last digit of your social security #

[PilotMan]

The thing that I think is interesting is that most of us have been saying for the better part of a year plus that the economy is in decline, and despite what the fed says that consumable inflation seems to be much higher than it is reported.

Now they are seem like they are panicking and we are supposed to believe that all of this is sudden and needs immediate attention, when most of us still see a steady decline.

Furthermore now we are supposed to believe that 120 million is going to stimulate a 10 trillion dollar economy? The numbers don't add up.

Are they then going to pat themselves on the back when the economy makes it normal turnaround, which could happen by the end of the year?

And then we re-elect them all?

I feel wool.

[Arles]

Um... you realize this refund isn't just supposed to be a gift, right? Its supposed to be a economic stimulus. It is well known that people with lower incomes have a higher marginal propensity to consume than those with higher incomes. So they are much, much more likely to spend the refund than those who have, say, over $75,000, who are more likely to save.
If by "save", you mean invest in the stock market, then I would agree. So, it comes down to whether you think paying off credit card debt is better than investing in the stock market. Also, if the small business owners were included (ie, over 75K), they would certainly be more likely to spend that money than a family of 3 at a lower income that will probably pay off CC debt.

If you are doing a rebate program to increase consumer spending, to stave off a recession (personally I think its a horrible idea), it makes perfect sense to give more money to those on the lower end of the economic scale. They'll actually spend more of it.
That makes no sense at all. They did numerous studies on the 2001 rebate and found that most of the "middle income" people (25-60K) used that money to pay down debt. The people that would spend it in the most positive manner are people in the 100-300K range as I'm guessing they would either blow it or roll it into other investments.

[Arles]

dola, I also think it's a terrible idea. But, if the logic is to spur on the economy, I would think that putting it in the hands of investors and consumers is better than just middle-income consumers.

[ISiddiqui]

If by "save", you mean invest in the stock market, then I would agree. So, it comes down to whether you think paying off credit card debt is better than investing in the stock market. Also, if the small business owners were included (ie, over 75K), they would certainly be more likely to spend that money than a family of 3 at a lower income that will probably pay off CC debt.

Savings = Investment, in economic terms anyway.

And I'm not convinced that most of that money will necessarily go down to paying off CC debt. Poor people like to blow the cash on stuff.... that's also why they sometimes tend to be in such debt ;).

They did numerous studies on the 2001 rebate and found that most of the "middle income" people (25-60K) used that money to pay down debt. The people that would spend it in the most positive manner are people in the 100-300K range as I'm guessing they would either blow it or roll it into other investments.

The stimulus is designed to increase consumer spending, not investments, necessarily. Sure, some of that would go to debt payoff, but I think they'd also use a good portion of it on a treat (one of the reasons that lesser income folks have a higher MPC than those higher up on the scale... they'd be less likely to invest it and more likely to actually spend it).

[Galaxy]

Maybe you just used the quote and your point had nothing to do with the quote, but are you saying that individuals that make less than $75K or Families making less than $150K make bad decisions? :confused:

No. I should of worded it better. My point is, who is going to pay for this? Plus, those who make above those income levels are more likely to be investors, as where middle-class to lower-class income earners are more likely to be spenders. I think you need a balance. Running up more debt just makes the long-term problems worse.

[Arles]

The stimulus is designed to increase consumer spending, not investments, necessarily. Sure, some of that would go to debt payoff, but I think they'd also use a good portion of it on a treat (one of the reasons that lesser income folks have a higher MPC than those higher up on the scale... they'd be less likely to invest it and more likely to actually spend it).
That may be. BTW, I feel like we are debating which Ted Nugent song is the best fit to use in a BET awards show. :p The reality is this is a bad idea whether you give the rebate to the poor, rich or the crowd of "Deal or No Deal".

[ISiddiqui]

That may be. BTW, I feel like we are debating which Ted Nugent song is the best fit to use in a BET awards show. :p The reality is this is a bad idea whether you give the rebate to the poor, rich or the crowd of "Deal or No Deal".

Well, yes. We agree on the end result (bad, bad policy), we are just arguing over nits, really.

[JPhillips]

The most proven way to get the money spent is more food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, but those measures don't get votes.

[sterlingice]

I'm going to buy a bunch of tree saplings and plant them, so my decendants can have jobs in the lumber industry.

That's real investing! ;)

SI

[flere-imsaho]

I'm firmly of the belief that there's basically nothing the government (or the Fed) can do to stimulate the economy in the short term. I think the main benefit of "stimulus packages" are psychological in nature ("Oh good, the government is doing something. No I don't feel so bad. Maybe we'll buy that TV anyway.")

In my opinion, if you want to give the economy a kick that will strengthen it in the 2-5 year range, you start giving out grants/tax incentives for innovation (technology, biotech, pharma, etc...). Give our most innovative companies more capital to do what this country still does best - innovate. When they're successful, they'll give more back to their investors, give more back to their employees, and that will spur and strengthen the country in general.

Ironically, it's exactly this kind of investment that's been systematically cut over the past 8 years (unless you've been in oil, that is).

Over the long-term, it's all about creating a modern, strong economy, which is something the government has been ignoring since, probably, Eisenhower.

[miked]

I wish they would put money back into the NIH for non-warfare, biotoxin, etc, studies.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Seriously people...can't we get back to the issue at hand here?


I like to be smacked around. ;)

[stevew]

Social Security numbers determine when economic stimulus checks go out

By GENE MEYER
The Kansas City Star


The Internal Revenue Service outlined Monday how your Social Security number will determine when you probably will get your economic stimulus check this spring or summer.


The IRS said it plans to deliver 130 million checks between May 2 and July 11 based on the last two digits of the recipient’s Social Security number.


According to the IRS, direct deposit payments will be made May 2 to recipients whose Social Security numbers end in 00-20.


Direct deposit payments will be made a week later, May 9, to people whose numbers end in 21-75. The final round of direct deposit payments will be made May 16 to people whose numbers end in 76-99.


Those who will receive paper checks are on a longer schedule.


Checks will be mailed May 16 to those whose numbers end in 00-09. A second round of checks will be mailed May 23 to those whose numbers end in 10-18. A May 30 mailing will be made to people whose numbers end in 19-25.


Subsequent mailings will be made June 6 to those whose numbers end in 26-38, June 13 to numbers 39-51, June 20 to numbers 52-63, June 27 to numbers 64-75, July 4 to numbers 76-87, and July 11 to those whose numbers end in 88-99.


The payments of $300 each to certain low-income recipients and $600 or $1,200 to single or married taxpayers, plus additional money for families with qualifying children, will be calculated from tax returns filed by April 15. Filers also can indicate on those returns whether they want money directly deposited in a bank account or mailed to them.


Late filers and anyone who owes back taxes or other debt that normally would interfere with getting a tax refund also may get either a later stimulus payment or a smaller one, the IRS said.

[stevew]

http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/

Nifty calculator

[Kodos]

Let's see. Last two digits are... 99.

[stevew]

hxxp://www.savvysugar.com/1576586

Looks like it may be as early as monday for some people, instead of next friday.
direct deposit

Last 2 Digits of SSN Date Check Will Be Sent
00-20 April 28
21-75 May 5
76-99 May 12



Paper check



Last 2 Digits of SSN Date Check Will Be Sent
00-09 May 9
10-18 May 16
19-25 May 23
26-38 May 30
39-51 June 6
52-63 June 13
64-75 June 20
76-87 June 27
88-99 July 4

[Ksyrup]

Score!